News and blog
Read and listen to news, insights and ideas from our team and global partners
Would businesses still choose good governance if nobody required it?
For much of the last two decades, the direction of travel on corporate governance appeared relatively clear. Governments and international organisations were asking more of businesses, while investors were paying greater attention to how companies were run. Anti-corruption compliance programmes became more established, and expectations around responsible business conduct continued to expand. The direction of travel is no longer obvious. Geopolitical fragmentation and concerns about regulatory burden are changing the conversation. In some parts of the world, there has been a total retreat from the ESG agenda. This has reopened questions about what should be required of businesses and what they might choose to do voluntarily. Would businesses still choose good governance if nobody required it? Some undoubtedly would. Others might not. The answer depends, at least in part, on what businesses believe governance is for. If businesses invest in governance and compliance structures primarily because somebody requires them to, then reduced regulation weakens the incentive to make that investment. If, though, stronger governance helps organisations make better decisions, its value looks different. This question is particularly interesting for small and medium-sized enterprises SMEs , which mostly face fewer formal governance requirements than larger or listed companies. It was also at the centre of a recent webinar delivered by the Basel Institute on Governance for the Malaysian Institute of Management MIM as part of its anti-corruption certification programme. Focusing particularly on SMEs, the session explored what governance and compliance mean in practice and how internationally recognised principles can be applied without creating unnecessary bureaucracy. It also looked at the relationship with organisational culture and at what happens when an integrity challenge is bigger than any one company. The discussion provided the starting point for many of the reflections in this article.
Why it’s worth investing in international anti-corruption research – three cheers for the FALCON project
For three years, the Basel Institute's Prevention, Research and Innovation team worked with 24 other research partners from across Europe on the ambitious Horizon Europe FALCON Fight Against Large-scale Corruption and Organised Crime Networks project. Our consortium brought together expertise in social science and research, technology development and law enforcement. We worked closely together to innovate the fight against corruption and organised crime by designing data-driven risk indicators and AI-enhanced solutions. This massive research project generated many useful “deliverables” – corruption intelligence, risk indicators, practical tools, policy guidance – that anti-corruption and counter-crime practitioners can directly apply in their work. Perhaps more importantly, the research and interactions have helped us all understand corruption better – and provided the evidence we need to innovate anti-corruption methods. This is bringing real benefits to our technical assistance to governments and organisations seeking to find smarter ways to prevent and combat corrupt and criminal networks, in Europe and beyond. It’s an example of why international, multidisciplinary anti-corruption research projects are worth the investment even in times of tightened belts and budget cuts. As the project winds down, here are four lessons we’d like to share with others. We also offer our warm thanks to the consortium leaders and partners, and to the EU institutions and individuals who continue to promote deep research into corruption and crime. Lesson 1: Understanding how corruption evolves helps anti-corruption practitioners keep up FALCON provided clear examples of how – and how quickly – corruption and crime adapt and evolve. Traditional understandings of corruption focus on a fairly static list of behaviours like bribery or embezzlement. In fact, FALCON research demonstrated how corruption occurs in complex systems, playing out through resilient networks of actors, institutions and incentives that evolve within equally complex political, economic and social contexts. Each new enforcement measure, detection tool or regulation changes the behaviour of those trying to circumvent it. When challenged, criminal actors adapt, prompting authorities to respond with further reforms. It's a never-ending dance of push and shove that we observed in a range of different settings. For example, in our research for the FALCON project, we have seen that criminal actors: - adapt their corruption and criminal strategies in response to strengthened enforcement see our articles on the evolution of corruption and on corruption and crime at the Kapitan Andreevo border ; - relocate their illicit activities elsewhere see our Working Paper 58 on corruption as a facilitator of drug trafficking in the port of Rotterdam ; and - apply counter strategies , such as undermining reform efforts and dismantling or weakening anti-corruption institutions and policies; or even - weaponise the anti-corruption apparatus against rivals look out for our forthcoming report on backlashes to anti-corruption reforms . How to keep up? Our approach, which we refined during the FALCON project, is to always base anti-corruption and counter-crime interventions on a strong understanding of underlying criminal dynamics. Map the stakeholders and their relationships, interests and incentives. Identify risks and problems that could arise. From there, legal reforms, grassroots initiatives, technology and everything else can function best as a flexible anti-corruption toolbox. We assemble and revisit tools as the context shifts and our knowledge advances. Lesson 2. Use AI, but understand its limitations A key point often forgotten amongst the technology optimism is to treat tech tools, including the ones built as part of the FALCON project, as inputs to expert human judgement, not as substitutes for it. A risk indicator or dashboard score can flag suspicious activities that require a closer look, but it can't tell you why an anomalous pattern exists or what to do about it. We must check an AI model's output against contextual knowledge and other evidence, and keep in mind what it was and wasn’t calibrated to detect. The same caution applies to AI. AI tools can be useful for analysing huge quantities of data and detecting patterns that point to corruption. But an AI could just as easily facilitate corruption as help you to tackle it, so make sure human judgement stays in the driving seat. Lesson 3. Reach beyond the bubble to identify synergies or unintended consequences It can be tempting for anti-corruption researchers to work only within the anti-corruption community, and may seem more efficient. But the truly multidisciplinary FALCON research consortium showed how closely crimes and corruption are interlinked. Look at them separately and you miss the true picture. Intervene to prevent one problem, and you might have unintended impacts on another. An example from our research at the border between Türkiye and Bulgaria: - Beefing up border control capacity against trafficking can result in criminals relying even more on corruption to avoid detection. - Conversely, stronger enforcement against corruption can lead to traffickers using more sophisticated criminal strategies to get illicit goods safely across the border. Before designing any intervention, we should assess how increased pressure in one policy area may affect others, including through the displacing of risks. Anti-corruption programmes are more effective when we ask these questions from the outset and coordinate more meaningfully with those working on related issues like organised crime and security. Lesson 4. Use strategic foresight – systematically anticipate new risks and changed contexts Our work on foresight and anticipatory governance has enhanced how we approach political economy assessments, including in projects unrelated to FALCON. We have long found it important to consider what could shift the terrain – a new law, technology, conflict or other – and what this would mean for a planned anti-corruption intervention. Now we have found tools and systems to do this systematically and periodically. The approach helps our partners to revisit anti-corruption frameworks, track emerging risks and anticipate unintended consequences. That’s key to mitigating them and adapting in good time. It also tangibly improves monitoring and evaluation frameworks, as we are not only reporting on what happened in the past, but adapting to what is up ahead. What’s next? The FALCON research project provided not only the practical guidance and reports it promised, but also a far more detailed understanding of how corruption and crime interlink and smarter tools to act on them both. As the project closes, we are grateful for the partnership, energised by what we've learned and ready to expand and apply them in our technical assistance to governments and development partners worldwide. The FALCON project was funded under the European Union’s Horizon Europe Framework Program Grant Agreement ID 101121281. The Basel Institute’s involvement in the project was funded by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation SERI . Views and opinions expressed are those of the author s only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, the European Research Executive Agency or SERI.
Bringing local voices into Peru’s decentralisation debate
How can a country ensure that national policies, budgets and administrative systems respond to realities on the ground – often in local communities and territories far beyond the capital? This question is at the centre of a series of regional policy dialogues taking Peru’s decentralisation debate beyond Lima. Held under the banner “The State in the Territory: New Pathways for Decentralisation” El Estado en el Territorio: nuevas rutas para la descentralización , the dialogues bring regional and local perspectives into the development of national policy proposals for improving decentralised government. The Basel Institute’s Subnational Public Financial Management Programme Programa GFP Subnacional – funded by the Swiss Economic Cooperation since 2015 – is leading the initiative with additional support from the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. We are happy to partner with three leading Peruvian academic and research institutions: the Institute of Peruvian Studies, Grupo Propuesta Ciudadana GPC and Universidad del Pacífico. The first dialogue took place in the city of Piura in northwestern Peru. Public officials, specialists, academics and civil society representatives held technical discussions on multilevel governance and the coordination of the state’s administrative systems. Why decentralisation needs local voices Decentralisation can bring decision-making closer to people and make public services and investment more responsive to local needs. But transferring responsibilities is not enough. Regional and local governments also need adequate resources, institutional capacity and administrative systems that work across different levels of the state. This is a challenge in many countries. National policies and systems need to provide consistency, while leaving enough room to respond to different regional circumstances. Without that balance, decentralisation can result in fragmented policies and spending rather than more effective government. Listening to people who work with these systems on the ground is therefore essential. Their experience can reveal where national policies support local delivery, where they create obstacles and what could work better. Understanding territorios The word territorio reflects this approach. In Spanish, it means more than a geographical area. It describes the ties between people, institutions and the places in which they live. It also carries political and social meaning. Local identities, inequalities and economic and environmental conditions all affect how people experience the state. In the debate about decentralisation, territorio therefore highlights a desire to gain a ground-up understanding of people’s realities in order to inform state reforms. Concrete outcomes from the Piura dialogue Piura offers an especially relevant setting for the first regional dialogue. Its major infrastructure needs and its experience of climate-related shocks, reconstruction and disaster risk management illustrate the limits of fragmented public action. They also underline the need for stronger coordination across sectors and levels of government. The discussion centred on a policy paper draft by Carlos Vargas, Director of the Basel Institute’s Subnational PFM Programme. It highlighted the need to strengthen coordination across planning, budgeting, public investment, procurement and implementation. Participants also stressed that decentralisation reform should go beyond the transfer of responsibilities across levels of government. A key priority is to ensure that the State’s administrative systems work together more effectively at the local level. This would enable public institutions to respond in a more coordinated and coherent way to local needs and priorities. As Carlos Vargas said: Piura shows that decentralisation is not only about transferring functions, it is about connecting systems, resources and capacities so that public action responds to local priorities and citizens’ needs. How regional experience will inform national policy The contributions from Piura and other regional dialogues in Arequipa, Cusco, Loreto and Lambayeque will inform a revised version of the policy paper and a wider set of recommendations for Peru’s national policy debate. Each dialogue will examine a different aspect of the relationship between decentralisation, public management and territorial development. If decentralisation is to work for people across Peru, regional and local experience must help shape it.
From private sector compliance to a Financial Intelligence Unit: how specialised education supported this shift
"I wanted to have more impact in helping my country prevent and combat money laundering." In her role as an Anti-Money Laundering Analyst at a commercial bank, Hortensia Uupindi felt that something was missing. After reporting suspicious transactions, she could not see what happened next. This curiosity evolved into a career objective: to transition into a role where she could take a more active part in combating financial crime and safeguarding the integrity of the financial system. With this in mind, she decided to enrol in the postgraduate programme "CAS Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery", delivered by the Basel Institute on Governance together with the University of Basel. In this interview, she shares her experience on taking the course, the ways it contributed to her professional growth and how it helped her transition into her current role at the Financial Intelligence Unit of Namibia. You were working in the compliance department at a commercial bank. What motivated you to take this programme? Working as an Anti-Money Laundering Analyst really opened my eyes to money laundering and its links to real-world financial crimes. Like many countries, Namibia also faces ongoing challenges with predicate offences such as corruption, fraud and tax evasion. At the bank, whenever we identified suspicious behaviour, we reported it to the Financial Intelligence Unit FIU . But we did not get to see what happened after that. At that time, I was familiar with the term “asset recovery”, but I did not understand how the entire value chain worked, with all its processes and challenges. Joining the FIU had always been one of my career aspirations. I was eager to learn more about asset recovery and strengthen my ability to contribute to my country's efforts to prevent and combat money laundering. The programme immediately caught my interest, and I knew it was an opportunity I could not miss. A few months ago, I successfully transitioned into my new role as a Compliance Analyst at the Namibian FIU. What change in perspective did this programme bring to your professional career? The course helped me understand the whole asset recovery process and the role I am playing in combating financial crime. It also showed me how to come up with solutions to resolve some of the challenges that slow the process down. That understanding made me appreciate the work I do on a daily basis even more. The aim is to prevent money laundering, but when an offence has already occurred, we want to recover those assets because they are proceeds of crime and make sure they are reinvested for public good. The Fishrot case in Namibia is a clear example of why asset recovery is so important. The funds that were misappropriated could have been used to support education, infrastructure and social development initiatives that would benefit the wider population. Instead, they enriched only a select few individuals. Recovering these assets would make a significant contribution to Namibia’s economy and development. The diversity of the cohort was another important highlight of the programme. I came from a banking background, but we had people from FIUs, anti-corruption agencies, asset management units and other areas. We could see how our different roles connect along the asset recovery chain. All in all, the programme changed my perspective because it gave me a balance between where I was and where I wanted to be. What was a highlight of the programme for you? There were many, both in terms of the content and the career opportunities. I particularly valued learning about international anti-money laundering frameworks and laws governing offences such as corruption and bribery. It enhanced my understanding of how illicit assets are acquired, as well as techniques for identifying and tracing them, before they are frozen, confiscated, recovered and re-used. Career-wise, the programme expanded my horizons. Before, I didn’t know there were so many career opportunities in the anti-financial crime sector. The lecturers and speakers showed us the diversity in this space. You were able to join the programme thanks to the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund. What did this support mean to you? I was fascinated by the programme until I saw the tuition fees. I couldn’t afford to pay for it in full. Then I saw that a scholarship fund was available, so I applied for both the programme and financial support. Being one of the recipients of partial financial support was a blessing. The course came at the perfect time in my career, equipping me with valuable knowledge and practical skills that have strengthened my professional capabilities. I would really encourage individual donors and organisations to continue supporting the scholarship fund. Capacity building is important, because it's only when skilled people are at the forefront of countering financial crime that a real difference can be made to society. What would you say to other professionals, including those in the private sector, who are unsure whether the programme is worth it? The programme is worthwhile. It has a structure that you don’t often find: a mix of practical experience and deep knowledge, combining lectures with real-world experience. It is beneficial for colleagues who already work in this field, but we also had classmates from other fields who are aspiring to enter the sector. It is friendly both for beginners and experienced professionals. The Basel Institute demonstrated a high level of professionalism throughout the programme. The lecturers were highly knowledgeable and generous in sharing their expertise. They consistently took the time to address our questions and brought in professionals from various sectors to provide additional insights. This programme truly has equipped us to play our part in the fight against financial crime. For anyone contemplating, it is truly a worthwhile opportunity. Thank you, Hortensia, for sharing your story and highlighting the impact this postgraduate programme has had on your professional journey. Learn more ::: links - Discover “Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery” - Postgraduate programme delivered online in partnership with the University of Basel. - Contribute to the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund - Help train the next generation of anti-corruption professionals. - Discover our offer of short online training courses - Practitioner-led training focused on real-world financial crime challenges. :::
Specialising in asset recovery: why this Argentinian prosecutor decided to take the leap
“When it comes to economic crime, securing a conviction is not always enough. If we do not recover the assets, we are not returning to society what was stolen from it.” This realisation marked a turning point in the career of Julio Petrucci, a prosecutor at the Attorney General’s Office of the Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Driven by this mindset and by his desire to keep pace with the way crime operates today, Petrucci decided to enrol in the postgraduate programme “CAS Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery” delivered by the Basel Institute on Governance together with the University of Basel. In this interview, he tells us about the challenges of his work, the issues demanding greater specialisation and the advice he has for other public servants who, like him, are striving to serve their citizens better. A prosecutor’s work requires constant adaptation. What motivates your daily work and what challenges do you face? My main motivation is to try to do good and to help repair what is broken in society when a crime is committed. In my country, as well as across the region, there are many economic difficulties and high levels of social inequality. Many people who become victims of crime rely on the Public Prosecutor's Office and other public institutions for support. As a prosecutor, I want to be able to provide these victims with answers and practical tools. Over time, I began to realise that my initial training was largely focused on crime in traditional, physical settings. However, crime scenes are often digital or have a strong financial component. That's when I identified the need to look for new tools to strengthen my investigations. It was through this search that I discovered the Basel Institute on Governance and its educational programmes. Why did you choose the Basel Institute programme to specialise in asset recovery? I was particularly interested in the specialised programme on asset recovery for three reasons: - first, because asset recovery is a highly relevant and rapidly growing field; - second, because I could not find other advanced courses offering this level of specialisation in countering financial crime; - and third, because of the international reputation of the Basel Institute on Governance and the University of Basel. What change in perspective did this programme bring to your professional career? The course marked a before and after in my career. In Argentina, asset recovery is still a developing field. Historically, we have analysed criminal cases with the aim of securing convictions. However, when it comes to economic crime, securing a conviction is not always enough. If we do not recover the assets, we are not returning to society what was stolen from it. Throughout the course, I learned not only about the different legal frameworks that exist around the world in this area, but also how to apply them to specific cases. The academic team and the online learning platforms were excellent. All this new knowledge and practical tools are already proving extremely useful in my day-to-day work. They have even contributed to my professional growth in ways that I am not yet able to comment on officially. This was also my first international experience. I got to meet people from different countries and professional backgrounds, which was very enriching. You were able to join the programme thanks to a scholarship. What did this support mean to you? I am a public official in a country facing significant economic challenges. The salaries of public officials like me, both in Argentina and across Latin America, are not particularly high. In this context, I saw that the Basel Institute offered financial support through the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund and decided to apply for it. From the outset, the team was very receptive. After some interviews, I was awarded a partial scholarship thanks to the funds they had raised, which allowed me to take the course. To donors and benefactors, I would say that their contribution is not just individual support for a student: it is a direct investment in justice systems in our countries. Thanks to their contribution, I now have the tools to investigate complex crimes and recover assets that belong to society. Why would you recommend this training to other prosecutors or investigators in the region? When you work in public service, and especially in a role such as that of a prosecutor, it is very difficult to look beyond what you see in your daily work. But crime is changing. In fact, it has already changed, and if we do not adapt, we will not be able to do our jobs effectively or help repair what is broken in society when a crime is committed. For this reason, I encourage prosecutors and others interested in tackling financial crime to step outside their day-to-day routine and take courses like this. I highly recommend this programme to them, not only because of its academic quality but also because of the quality and dedication of the Basel Institute team. It was an incredible experience. Thank you, Julio, for sharing your story and highlighting the impact this postgraduate programme has had on your professional journey. Julio Petrucci is just one of many talented professionals who have been able to take this course thanks to the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund. We are deeply grateful to all those who have generously contributed, and continue to contribute, to this fund, especially the International Academy of Financial Crime Litigators, Bonifassi Avocats, Bennett Jones, ECO Strategic Communications and Kellerhals Carrard. Learn more ::: links - Discover “Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery” - Postgraduate programme delivered online in partnership with the University of Basel. - Contribute to the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund - Help train the next generation of anti-corruption professionals. - Discover our offer of short online training courses - Practitioner-led training focused on real-world financial crime challenges. :::
Asset recovery postgraduate programme: Celebrating our first graduating cohort
How and where can a professional acquire specialised knowledge in asset recovery? A year ago, that question didn’t have an easy answer. Today, it does: with the postgraduate programme "CAS Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery", offered by the Basel Institute on Governance and the University of Basel. This July, we were delighted to welcome the first cohort to our headquarters in Basel and host the 1.5-day hybrid closing event. Here are a few highlights from the programme, and what participants themselves had to say about their experience. A programme unique in its class This Certificate of Advanced Studies CAS was developed to address a longstanding gap in postgraduate education. While aspects of asset recovery are covered in some university courses, there has until now been no similar qualification combining academic learning with practical skills. The programme draws on more than two decades of experience from our International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR , which has worked with authorities around the world to strengthen financial investigations, asset recovery and international cooperation. Graduates receive a CAS degree from the University of Basel, one of Switzerland's leading universities. A global classroom The first cohort brought together prosecutors, investigators, lawyers, anti-money laundering specialists, development practitioners, bankers and policy professionals from 10 countries across Africa, South America, Asia and Europe. The online format with live sessions helped make that possible. It gave participants the flexibility to join from anywhere in the world and balance the course with their day-to-day work – and, just as importantly, to connect with peers working under completely different legal systems. That’s exactly the kind of contact that matters for international cooperation. As one participant from Europe explained: The exchange with other participants working in different jurisdictions was extremely valuable. That was crucial for seeing how asset recovery is approached differently elsewhere, and what options other jurisdictions have. Asset recovery is a global issue now – money moves across the world, so you can't just sit in your office thinking everything stops at the border. The cohort also spanned different levels of expertise, from prosecutors to lawyers working in cybercrime to people just entering the field. As another participant, who works in development cooperation, explains: After having worked for two decades in development cooperation, I realised that if less money was lost to financial crime, countries could decide more autonomously where to invest in their own development. So I got interested in the topic of money laundering, and how we could get better at fighting it. Learning by doing When we asked participants what they found most valuable or unique about the programme, the answer was always the same: its practical approach. Asset recovery is a complex discipline that spans financial investigations, international cooperation, prosecution and the management and return of confiscated assets. Professionals working in this field need not only legal knowledge, but the practical skills that can be applied across different jurisdictions and institutional settings. Over six months, the cohort engaged in interactive online sessions built around real cases and realistic simulated investigation exercises, guided by practitioners who have investigated and prosecuted financial crime themselves. A participant from Uruguay explains: In most certifications, the focus tends to stay on theory and definitions, spending a lot of time discussing ethical and regulatory issues. But in this case, it was so case-specific and applied that by the end, you know what you have to do, you know how to investigate and you know the steps for asset recovery. The final project: a professional opportunity That practical focus culminates in the personal project each participant is now completing in order to graduate: a chance to advance a project from their own work, a side interest or simply an area they want to explore in more depth. One participant is taking the programme to build up a specialised Asset Recovery Office within the Ministry of Justice. It tackles the problem that currently, competence is split between the prosecutor's office and the police, and neither magistrates nor police officers have the same view of the data. Another participant is working on a proposal to bring public-private collaboration to her country's asset recovery efforts. She noticed a clear gap: information that should flow between the two sectors simply wasn't being exchanged. Throughout the programme, she tested her model with instructors, refining it with their feedback. Her final project now sets out how that collaboration could actually work in practice. Discussing future career steps The closing event was also a chance to look ahead to the careers and opportunities this certificate can open. An exclusive panel discussion showcased the breadth of career paths in combating financial crime, bringing together experts from international organisations, the public sector and private industry. The panel featured Kodjo Attisso Coordinator of the Illicit Finance Fusion Center – Africa at UNODC , Federica Maschera Group Financial Crime Engagement Manager at HSBC Holdings plc , Pedro Gomes Pereira Advisor on Anti-Corruption and Asset Recovery and Maria Schnebli Federal Prosecutor at the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland . The panellists shared their career paths and challenges in the various sectors, and the steps they took to get to their current affiliations. Maria Schnebli also gave a keynote speech on international collaboration and the challenges of combating financial crime from a Swiss prosecutor's perspective. This tied in perfectly with the work the students had done throughout the course. The Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund Some students in this cohort could only take the course thanks to financial support. We launched the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund to help cover tuition costs for talented professionals from low-income backgrounds. We have received, and continue to receive, generous donations from organisations and individuals alike. Julio Petrucci, a prosecutor at the Attorney General's Office of the Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was one of the participants who benefited. As he puts it: To donors and benefactors, I would say that your contribution isn't just individual support for one student – it's a direct investment in justice across our countries. Thanks to your contribution, I now have the tools to investigate complex crimes and recover assets that belong to society. We are deeply grateful to our donors for making these opportunities possible, especially the International Academy of Financial Crime Litigators, Bonifassi Avocats, Bennett Jones, ECO Strategic Communications and Kellerhals Carrard. Another way to build capacity As the first cohort prepares to graduate, the programme marks another step in the Basel Institute's efforts to strengthen global capacity to investigate financial crime, recover stolen assets, and build a new generation of practitioners connected through a worldwide community of practice. Along with our second postgraduate programme, “CAS Mastering Today’s Anti-Corruption Challenges”, it marks our current portfolio of practice related academic programmes to support careers, knowledge and skills development of talented international professionals and practitioners. Congratulations to all the participants of this first cohort. Learn more ::: links - Discover “Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery” - Postgraduate programme delivered online in partnership with the University of Basel. - Contribute to the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund - Help train the next generation of anti-corruption professionals. - Discover our offer of short online training courses - Practitioner-led training focused on real-world financial crime challenges. :::
How Peru is making asset recovery a frontline tool against organised crime
A joint reflection by Iker Lekuona, Director of the Basel Institute's International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR and Oscar Solórzano, Head of Latin America for ICAR, on how Peru is translating its commitment to combating organised crime into lasting institutional capability. Across Latin America, governments face mounting pressure to respond to organised crime, illicit finance and growing public concerns about security. At the same time, international development budgets are under strain. In this environment, one question keeps resounding: how can countries build capacity to tackle complex criminal threats with greater independence and resilience? For those of us working in asset recovery, the answer lies in institutions. Our goal in building asset recovery capability One of the ambitions behind ICAR’s technical assistance has always been straightforward. We want our partners to reach the point where they no longer rely on us for day-to-day operational support. Our partnerships should evolve towards higher-value strategic collaboration. Technical assistance should leave behind stronger systems, stronger expertise and stronger institutions capable of carrying the work forward independently. This is why recent developments in Peru are particularly significant. A strategic response to financial and organised crime Under the leadership of Attorney General Tomás Aladino Gálvez Villegas, the Public Prosecutor's Office is implementing a series of reforms that embed financial investigation, asset recovery and institutional coordination at the heart of Peru's response to organised crime. The reforms form part of the Sistema Fiscal Integrado de Recuperación de Activos SFIRA or “Integrated Prosecutorial Asset Recovery System”. At a meeting in May this year with Attorney General Gálvez and senior colleagues, we reflected on the challenges posed by modern organised crime and the need for institutions that can respond to increasingly sophisticated illicit financial flows. Regarding the intent behind the reforms, the Attorney General commented: We cannot continue expecting different results while relying on the same institutional approaches. Organised crime has evolved, and so must we. This reform reflects our determination to move beyond declarations of intent and build the permanent capabilities that prosecutors need to confront increasingly sophisticated criminal organisations. Reflecting on impact of the Basel Institute’s technical assistance through ICAR, he said: We value the support that the Basel Institute on Governance has provided over the years, and we invite the Basel Institute, our government institutions and the wider international community to join us in this effort. Confronting organised crime is a shared challenge that requires a shared commitment. This is how we turn commitment into practical action. Having worked closely with the Peruvian authorities for more than a decade, we believe this direction will be transformative for the country and its people. We also believe other jurisdictions can be inspired by this strategic, systemic response. We share some of the reasoning and details below. Organised crime is a financial phenomenon Public debates about organised crime often focus on violence or trafficking. Yet in anti-corruption and asset recovery circles, we all know that criminal organisations survive only because they are able to generate, move, conceal and reinvest enormous sums of money. The financial dimension of organised crime has become increasingly important as criminal groups expand across borders, diversify their activities and develop closer relationships with professional facilitators and corrupt actors. Illegal mining, environmental crime, drug trafficking, corruption and money laundering are frequently connected through the same financial networks. This is one reason why asset recovery has attracted growing attention from governments and international organisations alike. Less-known benefits of focusing on asset recovery Recovering illicit assets is valuable in itself, not least in times of squeezed public budgets and reduced flows of development aid. Confiscated assets can be reinvested in enhancing the capabilities of law enforcement and prosecution authorities. They can also be used to compensate victims and communities affected by corruption and crime. More importantly, the process of conducting financial investigations and pursuing illicit assets helps authorities understand how criminal networks operate, identify those who profit from them and weaken the structures that allow them to endure. This agenda has particular relevance today because it commands broad support across political and ideological divides. Governments may disagree on many issues. The need to tackle organised crime and illicit finance is rarely one of them. What makes the reforms innovative and impactful Experience has also shown that asset recovery cannot remain a specialised activity reserved for exceptional cases. To keep pace with increasingly sophisticated criminal organisations, countries need to move beyond isolated successes and build institutions that make financial investigation and asset recovery part of everyday prosecutorial practice. In Peru, rather than creating another specialised unit, the Public Prosecutor's Office is building an institutional model that brings together the capabilities needed to tackle the financial dimension of organised crime in a more coordinated, multidisciplinary and sustainable way. The model combines specialised operational support for prosecutors, strategic criminal analysis and stronger institutional coordination. At the same time, it seeks to ensure that the knowledge gained through complex investigations is progressively embedded within the organisation. The objective goes beyond success in individual cases. The aim is to strengthen the Public Prosecutor's Office's long-term capacity to investigate, disrupt and recover the proceeds of organised crime. Importantly, the new arrangements will support both international and domestic asset recovery efforts. - International cases remain essential but often require years of litigation and cooperation across multiple jurisdictions. - Domestically, Peru can also do a lot to target criminal assets located within its own borders and to disrupt illicit economies that continue to fuel insecurity and corruption. As part of this effort, the Public Prosecutor's Office is investing its own resources in the new structure, including resources linked to a tripartite asset return agreement between Peru, Luxembourg and Switzerland that was supported by the Basel Institute through ICAR. From technical assistance to national ownership This institutional model reflects capabilities developed over more than a decade of operational cooperation between our ICAR team and the Public Prosecutor's Office. Through joint work on complex investigations, both our institutions developed practical approaches to financial investigation, international asset recovery and multidisciplinary prosecutorial support. The current reforms seek to embed these proven capabilities within the permanent structures of the Public Prosecutor's Office. This will ensure that the knowledge accumulated through years of operational cooperation becomes part of the institution itself rather than remaining dependent on external technical assistance or individual expertise. For donors and development partners, this matters. The value of technical assistance cannot be measured only by assets recovered or training sessions delivered. Its deeper contribution lies in helping institutions develop the confidence, capabilities and structures needed to perform these functions independently and continuously improve them over time. Why this matters beyond Peru Every country must develop solutions that fit its own legal system, institutions and priorities. Yet some lessons travel well. One is that asset recovery works best when it is integrated into broader efforts to combat organised crime rather than treated as a specialised activity operating at the margins of criminal investigations. Another is that sustainable progress depends on institutions. Cases come and go. Leadership changes. Criminal networks evolve. Strong institutions provide continuity. Peru's reforms will not solve every challenge posed by organised crime. No single reform can. But they represent a thoughtful and ambitious attempt to strengthen the state's ability to understand, investigate and disrupt the financial foundations of criminal activity. For us, they also represent something else: evidence that long-term partnerships can create capabilities that endure beyond any individual project. There are few better outcomes for a technical assistance programme than seeing the ideas, methods and expertise it has supported become part of the institutions it set out to strengthen.
2025 Annual Report: Foreword by Elizabeth Andersen and Peter Maurer
We are pleased to launch the Basel Institute on Governance’s Annual Report 2025, highlighting how our teams and partners turned a year of profound disruption into practical action against corruption and financial crime. From record asset recoveries and landmark enforcement outcomes to locally led governance reforms, business integrity initiatives and new approaches to emerging risks, the report reflects the breadth of our work across more than 18 country teams worldwide. In the foreword below, our President Peter Maurer and Executive Director Elizabeth Andersen reflect on the changing global anti-corruption landscape, the resilience of the movement and why our mission is more important than ever. Turning challenges into action The anti-corruption landscape changed dramatically in 2025, as the United States stepped back from its role as a global standard-bearer for anti-corruption and good governance. The U.S. continued support for some international enforcement efforts, particularly associated with transnational organised crime. But it shuttered most international anti-corruption programmes with the closing of USAID, announced a deprioritisation of prosecution of foreign bribery, and assumed an increasingly transactional approach to international relations that downplayed governance concerns. The result, characterised by many as an end to the rules-based international order, has raised significant questions about the future of global efforts to promote and enforce anti-corruption and good governance norms. At the Basel Institute on Governance, the answer is clear. Our work is more important now than ever. Our experience of the past year has validated the Institute’s longstanding approach, focused on empowering partners through hands-on support that produces real, sustainable change. And we are highly motivated to meet today’s challenges with creativity, innovation and resilience. In 2025, historic declines in overseas development assistance reinforced the imperative to safeguard public resources from corruption and recover the proceeds of financial crime and corruption for reinvestment in social goods. At the Institute, we redoubled our efforts toward these ends. - We worked with partners to protect investments in health in Albania, humanitarian assistance in Malawi, education in Peru and reconstruction, transport, energy and defence in Ukraine, to name a few. - Our International Centre for Asset Recovery contributed to the return of a record USD 65.2 million to partner countries, while our Green Corruption programme supported partners in a number of “first-ever” law enforcement wins in the fight against environmental crime. - And our Prevention, Research and Innovation team advanced novel methods to target the social norms underlying corrupt behaviour and ensure that anti-corruption initiatives achieve lasting impact. Experience of the past year has also highlighted the benefits of the Institute’s approach to advancing business integrity. The U.S. decision to deprioritise global anti-bribery enforcement raised concerns of a new race to the bottom that would disadvantage companies refusing to pay bribes. The Institute’s work to advance anti-corruption Collective Action offered businesses an effective response – a proven strategy to build and sustain a level playing field where all stakeholders in a given market or sector commit to and uphold integrity best practices. In 2025, we studied more than 340 initiatives on our online Collective Action Hub to glean lessons learned and provide practical guidance for companies grappling with the shifting compliance landscape. We have been encouraged to see the resilience of the anti-corruption movement in the face of significant headwinds. The United Kingdom, France and Switzerland announced a new joint task force to strengthen their enforcement efforts. The Basel Institute welcomed this initiative and encouraged them to go further. In two working papers and engagement with policymakers, we made the case for repurposing the settlement payments from foreign bribery cases to support anti-corruption reforms. 2025 also saw signs of hope in the streets and at the ballot box, as protestors fed up with corruption and mismanagement generated political transitions in countries across the globe. The Basel Institute stands ready to provide swift support for partners in these transitional moments, which are important windows of opportunity to implement sustainable anti-corruption reforms. In 2025 alone, we launched programmes in support of new governments pursuing accountability and reform in Ghana, Bangladesh, Madagascar and Sri Lanka. Looking forward, we are focused on bringing our expertise to bear on new global corruption challenges, from the race for critical minerals to the surge in defence spending and the transformative effects of crypto and AI. The Institute is developing new initiatives to address the risks and seize the opportunities arising in each of these areas. In sum, there is no denying that developments in 2025 sent shockwaves through the global anti-corruption movement. But, with inspiration from those like the brave Ukrainian citizens who in July 2025 took to the streets of Kyiv to successfully defend the independence of their anti-corruption agencies, our movement is rising to the occasion. At the Basel Institute, we are proud to do our part. We are enormously grateful for the sustained support of our donors, who understand the foundational importance of integrity and good governance. We have great admiration for the perseverance of our partners in government agencies, businesses and civil society organisations across the globe. And we look forward to your feedback on the work described in this report and to working together to take these efforts forward in the year ahead. ::: button Download the Basel Institute's Annual Report 2025 :::
Four priorities for an effective EU Anti-Corruption Strategy
With good governance norms under growing pressure, the EU has an opportunity to show decisive leadership in the fight against corruption. The European Commission’s first EU-wide Anti-Corruption Strategy, building on the recently adopted EU Anti-Corruption Directive, is a chance to strengthen coordination across Member States and realise the promise of the Directive for the EU’s 450+ million inhabitants. Done well, it will reinforce the security, economic prosperity and political stability that underpin Europe’s long-term competitiveness. The Basel Institute on Governance has responded to the Commission’s call for evidence with recommendations drawn from more than two decades of research and hands-on work with governments, law enforcement agencies, businesses and civil society. Our submission highlights four areas that we believe should be central to the new Strategy. These are briefly summarised below, and included in full in the submission. Promote a whole-of-society approach Governments cannot tackle complex corruption risks alone. Businesses, civil society, researchers and affected communities all have a role to play. The Strategy should therefore explicitly endorse Anti-Corruption Collective Action. This approach brings stakeholders together to identify shared risks, agree standards and develop practical mechanisms for compliance and accountability. It has been used to address money laundering risks in the financial services sector, bribery and extortion in ports, corruption in public procurement and integrity challenges in the defence sector. It is widely endorsed by organisations including the OECD, UNODC and UN Global Compact, and already included in many national anti-corruption strategies. Harness data and technology responsibly Artificial intelligence, big data analytics, open-source intelligence and automated risk indicators can help identify suspicious procurement patterns, conflicts of interest, illicit financial flows and hidden relationships. Research through the EU-funded FALCON project, of which the Basel Institute is a consortium member, shows that effective anti-corruption systems increasingly depend on the ability to collect, connect and analyse large volumes of information. The Strategy should support responsible testing of new tools, including through regulatory sandboxes, while also investing in the foundations they require: digitisation, interoperable systems, standardised datasets, machine-readable information and secure cross-border data sharing. Focus on priority risks and high-risk activities Beyond these approaches, our submission highlights four high-risk areas requiring particular attention. - Foreign bribery: Enforcement remains uneven and settlements often fail to address the harm suffered by affected countries and communities. The Strategy should promote stronger enforcement and fairer approaches to compensation and the use of recovered proceeds. - Public procurement: Risks are rising as Europe increases investment in defence, infrastructure, energy security and strategic technologies. Priorities should include stronger transparency, better oversight and data-driven risk assessment. - Borders and customs: Corruption at borders can facilitate smuggling, trafficking, sanctions evasion and tax fraud. Greater automation, data integration and consistent procedures can strengthen prevention and detection. - Financial infrastructure: Shell companies, professional intermediaries, offshore structures and virtual assets can help conceal corrupt proceeds. The Strategy should strengthen links between anti-corruption, anti-money laundering and asset recovery, including through the EU’s new Anti-Money Laundering Authority. Build in an ongoing research, innovation and learning agenda Corruption constantly evolves as actors adapt to new laws, technologies and enforcement practices. Anti-corruption policy must evolve too. Research also shows that anti-corruption laws alone do not change corrupt behaviour. Social norms, political incentives and institutional cultures can sustain corruption even where formal rules are strong. The Strategy should support sustained applied research and create stronger channels for researchers, policymakers, law enforcement, businesses and civil society to exchange evidence and lessons. It should also use differences between national systems as opportunities to test approaches, evaluate results and improve policy across the Union. Learn more - Download the Basel Institute on Governance’s full submission to the European Commission’s call for evidence on the EU Anti-Corruption Strategy. - See complementary perspectives on the EU Anti-Corruption Directive on how it might affect anti-corruption enforcement from a legal and institutional perspective, and on what the Directive reveals about how corruption is evolving in the EU and beyond.
Is this a turning point for asset recovery success in Europe?
Those of us dedicated to fighting financial crime were excited to see the Council of Europe’s recent adoption of an Additional Protocol to the Warsaw Convention, an international treaty on the prevention and control of money laundering and terrorist financing. The Protocol, together with the Warsaw Convention, arguably represents one of the most advanced treaty frameworks on asset recovery. It elevates practices developed in more advanced jurisdictions into binding commitments and raises the baseline for all participating states. It also requires states to rethink their approach to anti-money laundering and asset recovery in several important respects. Among others, it: - places greater emphasis on financial investigations; - strengthens the institutional architecture supporting asset recovery; - obliges states to significantly improve their ability to cooperate in cross-border cases. To achieve these objectives, it introduces a range of operational measures designed to facilitate the tracing, freezing, management and recovery of criminal assets. These include dedicated asset recovery bodies, centralised account registries and enhanced mechanisms for information sharing and international cooperation. This short explainer highlights some of the points that we, at the Basel Institute, find most important and potentially impactful based on two decades of experience of our International Centre for Asset Recovery supporting jurisdictions around the world on anti-money laundering and asset recovery. Why the new Protocol? The 2005 Warsaw Convention – formally the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure, and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism – establishes a comprehensive framework for anti-money laundering and asset recovery. It requires its 39 States Parties to implement anti-money laundering measures, including customer due diligence, suspicious transaction reporting and Financial Intelligence Units. It also requires them to cooperate internationally to identify, trace, freeze, seize, confiscate and return criminal assets. The need to modernise the Convention and respond to evolving forms of illicit finance, digital assets and the increasingly rapid movement of assets across borders drove the adoption of the new Protocol. The Protocol seeks to ensure consistency with emerging international and regional standards, including the Financial Action Task Force Recommendations. It also seeks to make advanced asset recovery mechanisms developed within the European Union framework available across the wider Council of Europe space, which includes 46 European states. Connecting financial intelligence with asset recovery and management The Protocol's main innovation lies in the integration of Financial Intelligence Units, Asset Recovery Offices and Asset Management Offices into a coherent institutional architecture. The integration is designed to support rapid intervention, effective asset tracing and management, and cross-border cooperation. By doing so, it strengthens the role of non-law enforcement actors in tracing, safeguarding and preserving the value of assets. First, under the Protocol, States Parties are required to establish Asset Recovery Offices with powers to trace assets, cooperate directly with foreign counterparts and take immediate action to preserve assets, including crypto, in cross-border cases. Second, States Parties are also required to establish Asset Management Offices responsible for managing frozen and confiscated property and for cooperating with domestic and foreign authorities. Third, the Protocol also strengthens the operational role of Financial Intelligence Units in asset recovery by requiring states to grant them powers to temporarily suspend transactions, accounts and business relationships. Many jurisdictions already permit the temporary suspension of suspicious transactions. However, FATF standards do not require Financial Intelligence Units to have such authority. In practice, these reforms recognise that anti-money laundering and asset recovery are closely interconnected. Early intervention significantly increases the chances of successful asset recovery at both domestic and cross-border level. They also emphasise that asset value must be preserved from freezing to disposal. Achieving this requires empowering specialised authorities responsible for financial intelligence, asset tracing and asset management. Streamlining access to asset and ownership data The Protocol requires the establishment of centralised account registries capable of identifying bank accounts, payment accounts, securities accounts, safe deposit boxes and crypto accounts, along with their beneficial owners and any persons authorised to act on behalf of account holders. Financial Intelligence Units, Asset Recovery Offices and other competent authorities are explicitly granted access to these mechanisms. This creates a dedicated infrastructure for locating assets within a jurisdiction. It also allows the exchange of such information between authorities in cross-border cases. While centralised bank account registries already exist in many jurisdictions, they are far from universal. Moreover, where such systems do exist, they have traditionally focused on bank account information and often do not extend to other forms of financial holdings, such as securities accounts, safe-deposit boxes or crypto accounts. In practice, this addresses a major operational bottleneck. Identifying accounts usually requires multiple requests to banks and other institutions, which increases the length of financial investigations. Centralised registries significantly improve operational efficiency by accelerating asset tracing and reducing the risk of asset dissipation before authorities can act – an approach now being extended to volatile asset classes such as cryptocurrencies. Maximising the value of financial investigations The Protocol establishes a comprehensive framework to prioritise and enhance asset tracing and financial investigations. The Protocol requires competent authorities to be able to conduct financial investigations without delay, independently or alongside criminal investigations at all stages of proceedings. This includes after a confiscation order has been issued. Such investigations are intended to be flexible in scope and may be used to identify the scale of criminal networks, trace and secure assets subject to confiscation, or gather evidence for criminal or asset recovery proceedings. This emphasis on early and adaptable financial investigation underscores the Protocol’s objective of embedding asset tracing and recovery as a routine component of enforcement processes, while preserving discretion for competent authorities in how these tools are applied in practice. Asset management gets the attention it deserves The Protocol encourage states to shift away from perceptions that asset management is a secondary administrative task and instead view it as a necessary, value-preserving core function of asset recovery systems. It obligates States Parties to establish a detailed asset management framework, that includes: - the possibility of selling seized assets before confiscation where property is perishable, rapidly depreciating or requires specialised management that is not readily available, thereby preserving value pending the outcome of proceedings; and - measures facilitating the reuse of seized and confiscated assets. Experience shows that preserving the value of seized assets requires more than legal powers. It also depends on having clear procedures, dedicated resources and expertise. This is particularly true for complex or newer forms of assets, such as cryptocurrencies. The practical side of asset management is an especially important consideration for many of the Basel Institute’s partner jurisdictions, where asset management has often not been prioritised until now. Lessons from the field show that strong asset management depends on the combination of legal frameworks and the capacity to putting them into practice, including specialized institutions for asset management. Practical ways to enhance international cooperation The Protocol introduces several measures designed to strengthen international cooperation between Financial Intelligence Units, Asset Recovery Offices and Asset Management Offices , as well as judicial authorities. On the latter, key measures we highlight as particularly valuable include: First, mandatory standard forms for the transmission and execution of freezing and confiscation requests. Although model templates already exist in a number of international and regional frameworks, their use is often optional. The Protocol seeks to promote greater consistency in requests, reduce delays caused by incomplete information and facilitate more efficient cooperation between authorities. Second, Joint Investigation Teams established for the purpose of tracing and recovering assets liable to confiscation. Joint Investigation Teams provide a mechanism for authorities to work together in real time, exchanging intelligence and evidence directly without relying on formal mutual legal assistance. While they are already envisaged under instruments such as United Nations Convention Against Corruption, United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and EU law, these frameworks primarily focus on the investigation of criminal offences. By contrast, the Protocol innovatively provides for Joint Investigation Teams dedicated solely to asset recovery objectives. Joint Investigation Teams dedicated to financial investigations already operate in practice, but the Protocol provides a clear legal basis and encourages more systematic reliance on them. The combination of proactive domestic investigations and cross-border teams can be a powerful tool bolster the identification and ultimate freezing of criminal assets on a broader scale. A powerful Protocol that can inspire all States – and is hopefully not a paper tiger The Additional Protocol marks a clear shift in asset recovery towards an intelligence-led and institutionally integrated model of enforcement that also seeks to maximise the value of criminal assets that are seized and recovered by the state. Its practical impact though, will depend less on legislative alignment than on whether states can build the specialised institutions, tools, expertise and cross-border cooperation needed to make early tracing, preservation and recovery operationally effective. Depending on existing capacity, this may require legal reform, technical assistance and targeted training. Without this, the Protocol’s significance risks remaining largely theoretical. In any case, even beyond the Council of Europe space, the Protocol provides a clear blueprint for jurisdictions seeking to strengthen their asset recovery frameworks. Its approach is closely aligned with the principles that guide our work with partner jurisdictions outside Europe. The Protocol will provide an additional tool to support countries in designing reforms that are both ambitious and grounded in their specific legal, institutional and operational realities. View key points PDF .
From budgets to bridges: how better public finance management improves lives in Peru and beyond
How public money is managed at the local level has a direct impact on people's lives – from whether children get their school books to the conservation of local environments on which many communities depend for their health and livelihoods. For more than a decade, the Basel Institute on Governance and the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs SECO have partnered with regional and municipal governments across Peru to strengthen public financial management and improve public service delivery. Through the Programa GFP Subnacional, a dedicated team combines practical technical assistance with innovative approaches, including data analytics, digital tools and behavioural interventions. Together, these help governments make better decisions, use resources more effectively and communicate better with the people they serve. In this Q&A, Programme Director Carlos Vargas explains how Programa GFP Subnacional – the Subnational Public Finance Management PFM programme – works, what it has achieved and why its lessons matter beyond Peru. How does the programme help governments deliver better services? Broadly speaking, the programme aims to enhance processes for public service delivery and improve the capacity of subnational governments to use public resources responsibly. In practice, this means really hands-on assistance with things like tax management or budget planning that both covers the required resources e.g. teaching materials and considers what’s needed to deliver a service e.g. enough vehicles to distribute the materials to schools . This in turn ensures that citizens receive public services in the quantity and quality they need and projects are completed within budget and on time. In other words, the programme aims to make a real difference in people's lives – particularly in areas like education, health, biodiversity conservation and the fight against climate change. Our advisors work hand-in-hand with local officials, providing technical assistance, training and support with technology in line with national priorities and systems. What difference has the programme made in terms of revenue generation? The results have been significant. One of the clearest examples comes from Tarapoto in the San Martín region. Through automated WhatsApp reminders, streamlined processes and a new online payment system, the municipality increased property tax collection. The additional revenue helped fund a bridge that now provides around 800 pupils with safe, direct access to their school. In the Municipality of Piura, we helped automate tax collection processes using algorithms and artificial intelligence to better understand taxpayer behaviour. This allowed us to group taxpayers into categories and design tailored communication strategies for each, which helped increase property tax revenue – funds governments need to invest in public services. How about in education or conservation? In education, we have assisted regions to ensure that around 95 percent of school materials now arrive on time before the start of the school year. The programme has also contributed to the timely delivery of vaccines and medicines. On biodiversity conservation, we have supported three regional governments in Peru to establish a baseline for deforestation, drawing on 24 years' worth of data to identify zones that are particularly vulnerable to deforestation and other illegal activities. Based on this, we have developed an early warning system that enables regional governments to act more quickly and direct their limited resources towards the most critical areas rather than trying to cover vast territories. Why are regional and municipal governments so important? In Peru, public spending is highly decentralised – around 35 to 45 percent of the budget is allocated to regional governments and municipalities. These are the entities closest to citizens. If this final link in the chain does not work well, citizens will not receive the services they need. How does better public finance management reduce corruption risks? By improving the efficiency and transparency of processes within public bodies, we limit discretionary power and reduce opportunities for corruption. The programme has generated concrete evidence of this. The regional government of Loreto – Peru’s largest region – for example, rose from 18th to 4th place in the national ranking of corruption prevention capacity after becoming a programme beneficiary. This kind of progress matters, because corruption ultimately undermines the delivery of public services and the responsible use of public resources. What can other countries learn from Peru's experience? We see the Programa GFP Subnacional as a laboratory for public finance innovation. Over more than a decade, it has generated proven tools and approaches that improve efficiency, reduce losses and help ensure the quality of public services. This body of evidence – tested and refined over time – represents a form of global learning. The lessons and best practices the programme generated can be shared not only across Peru but also with other countries, where they can be adapted to local needs. In this sense, the Swiss government's investment in the programme goes beyond impact in a specific region: it is an investment in generating knowledge and innovations that can inform public financial management reforms and help improve public services and the lives of citizens elsewhere.
There’s a gap between what laws say and what people do. How is that useful for anti-corruption work?
In episode 37 of the podcast Sophie au pays des possibles, host and anti-corruption expert Sophie Lemaître conversed with Claudia Baez Camargo, Director of Prevention, Research and Innovation at the Basel Institute on Governance. Claudia leads a specialised team of researchers who leverage behavioural science, political economy analysis and field research to design context-sensitive anti-corruption strategies. Among others, they advance approaches based on understanding and targeting social norms. This Q&A is an edited extract of their discussion on why top-down laws often fail against local realities and how practical, bottom-up solutions can empower citizens to drive real change. Sophie Lemaître: What are social norms, and why is it essential to consider them when addressing corruption? Claudia Baez Camargo: Essentially, social norms are what we perceive as typical, expected or socially accepted behaviour in a given context. For example, if a traffic officer stops you in Mexico – where I was born and grew up – most would offer a bribe to get out of the predicament. Or when accessing healthcare services, people might give a “gift” or bribe before receiving care. If they don't, they fear they won't receive the service or the correct medicine. Even if they are personally against corruption and know the law forbids it, the social expectation can push them to do it anyway. Understanding these expectations is key to designing effective anti-corruption interventions. Sophie: I've heard statements like "Corruption is part of the culture of this country." Can we say some cultures or countries are more corrupt than others? Claudia: I've often been told, across Africa, Latin America, the Balkans or Asia, "Oh, Claudia, it's in our culture. What are we going to do?" But these regions have such vastly different cultures that I doubt culture is the defining factor. In my view, the real drivers are structural. - First, there are resource constraints: living in poverty and unmet need drives corruption. - Second, there are weak state institutions. When the state fails to deliver, it generates incentives to bypass the law just to solve problems, make money or access services. Culture simply adapts around these realities, absorbing corrupt practices through local names and jokes. Social norms apply to concrete, narrow situations – they dictate what we're expected to do. Culture is something we all have an emotional stake in, so calling a culture corrupt is self-degrading and ignores how rich cultures are. I prefer to focus on social norms because they provide a concrete entry point where we can actually act and change things. Sophie: Have you noticed people saying that addressing corruption is a Western thing? Claudia: Government and anti-corruption officials across the board have assimilated the language of good governance, largely because their laws follow UN Conventions. At that level, a Westernised view definitely prevails. At the grassroots, it's completely different. In research in Uganda and Tanzania, we used fictional "vignettes" to ask citizens about their perceptions of public officials, presenting two characters: - One who strictly abides by the law and refuses bribes. - Another who uses their authority to extract resources, but distributes them to their family and community. Stealing in order to share, like Robin Hood. Almost without exception, people said the one stealing and sharing was great, loved and respected, while the law-abiding official was called a traitor who ignored his community responsibilities. From this view, the "corrupt" ones are those who fail to use power to look after their network. Ultimately, there is vast room for interpretation regarding what corruption is, depending entirely on social norms, cultural environments and practical needs. Sophie: How can we induce behaviour change to create a culture of integrity when the situation involves so many social norms, informal practices and other drivers? Claudia: A lot of anti-corruption projects and investments are still very prescriptive. Focusing purely on top-down "best practices" and laws creates an "implementation gap": countries with excellent laws on paper but terrible results in practice. To achieve sustainable change, we must go bottom-up. Working at the subnational or municipal level shows a lot of promise, because it allows local governments to engage directly with constituents, jointly identify priorities and co-design solutions. As scholar Yuen Yuen Ang argues in her work on adaptive political economy, you cannot expect context-defying behaviours to emerge just because you pass a law. We need to use what is already there – local practices, social networks and community groups – to solve problems sustainably without corruption. It does not have to be a textbook Western "best practice", as long as it works. Sophie: Do you have a success story or promising initiative you could share? Claudia: On success stories, once I worked on a project on a remote island in the Philippines where the mayor was a true champion for his community. He even gave his personal mobile number to every citizen. It was a very poor community, but because things were decided collectively, their few resources were visibly used in the best interest of everyone. On promising initiatives, I'm currently supporting a Swiss-funded project in Moldova that takes this bottom-up approach seriously: its first year is dedicated purely to building trust among local stakeholders. Without trust, people can't collaborate or identify joint priorities. Investing in trust, then letting the community take the driver's seat, is essential for sustainability. Otherwise, once funding dries up, everything regresses. Sophie: Anti-corruption progress is slow, and we’re experiencing a global backlash. What keeps you motivated? Claudia: What I love about my job is going to different countries and speaking with mayors, citizen groups, civil society organisations and the private sector – the real people on the ground whose lives would be transformed if there were less corruption. That's what motivates me. Corruption remains a devastating barrier to development and poverty reduction. We often hear we need to "raise awareness", but that isn't true; in almost every context, people already know what's corrupt, suffer from it and dislike it. We simply cannot give up. The climate can be demotivating, but if we're passive spectators, we can say goodbye to the institutions we've fought for. With our actions, we can intervene and change the course of events. Sophie: One final question: how can we as individual citizens play a role in fighting corruption? Claudia: First, by understanding our duties. Good governance is fundamentally linked to democracy, and whether you live in an established or fragile democracy, the legal framework almost always gives citizens instruments to engage with their representatives. If we normalise using these tools to question authority and demand accountability, we strengthen the rule of law and put corrupt actors under scrutiny. If enough people do this, a lot can change. Learn more ::: links - Quick Guide: Social norms and corruption - Research Case Study: Harnessing behavioural approaches against corruption - Blog – Bridging the gap: How behavioural science can strengthen anti-corruption and crime prevention - Article – Corruption and Social Norms: A New Arrow in the Quiver - Episode 37 of Sophie au pays des possibles :::
Six new certified trainers will scale financial investigation and asset recovery capacity in Romania
As part of a wider Swiss-Romanian Cooperation Programme, our International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR has concluded a successful nine-month train-the-trainer TTT programme in Bucharest. Alongside delivering foundational money laundering and asset recovery training to 125 practitioners in total, the programme has certified six new local trainers. Equipped with ICAR’s unique training methodology, they are now ready to independently train their peers and help strengthen financial investigation and asset recovery capacity across Romania. Building sustainable national capacity The six trainers certified through the programme include one judge, four prosecutors and one representative of the National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets ANABI . Fully independently, they will now deliver a further 15 workshops across the country. This effort will effectively bring the total number of practitioners trained to around 500, including judges, prosecutors, specialists, ANABI inspectors and other relevant practitioners. This is a clear example of how train-the-trainer programmes are a proven approach to building sustainable national capacity. On one side, certified local trainers help ensure that knowledge and skills continue to be transferred even after a programme concludes. On the other side, participants benefit far more from learning from peers who understand their specific challenges and possibilities. Two critical legal tools in focus This time, the programme placed particular emphasis on two areas where practitioners can strengthen their response to financial crime: treating money laundering as a standalone offence and launching financial investigations from the earliest stages of a case. 1. The standalone money laundering offence A persistent challenge in money laundering investigations is the assumption that prosecutors must first prove or secure a conviction before pursuing money laundering charges. Under the Council of Europe's Warsaw Convention CETS No. 198, Art. 9 and EU Directive EU 2018/1673 on combating money laundering by criminal law, a conviction for money laundering actually requires neither a prior nor a simultaneous conviction for the predicate offence, nor that the predicate offence be established or identified with precision: prosecutors need only show that the property derives from criminal activity, not which specific crime generated it. As one of the newly certified trainers reflected: I highly valued the new perspective of setting aside the old view of placement, layering and integrating the proceeds of a crime in order to prove money laundering. … It was very useful the approach of covering as many areas as possible impacted by money laundering, like crypto assets, which I did not know almost anything about before, and asset recovery, which is not a topic very much considered in our practice. I was also very impressed how the concept of multi-stakeholder approach in fighting ML was reflected in setting up the groups for the practical exercise. 2. Systematic use of parallel financial investigations Another important approach is the systematic use of parallel financial investigations to identify and trace criminal assets from the outset of a case. This approach is now required under Directive EU 2024/1260 on asset recovery and confiscation, which obliges Member States to launch asset-tracing investigations alongside criminal investigations into high-revenue-generating crime, rather than waiting for a conviction before tracing assets. This shift is already visible in practice. One trainer wrote: I started talking to my colleagues about financial investigations and money laundering. I managed to send to court my first money laundering case, though not standalone, and I also started asking the police to start financial investigations from the beginning of the file. From training to real cases The effect of our training has also reached institutional level. One trainer reported: The management has started disseminating theoretical and practical materials on these topics, organising meetings and training sessions with practitioners and academics, and actively encouraging prosecutors to consider money laundering and asset recovery aspects in their cases. These initiatives have facilitated increased awareness and engagement within the institution. This is exactly the dual impact we seek through the Train-the-Trainer model: a sustainable, independently delivered training capacity, paired with a genuine shift in how practitioners approach financial investigations in their daily work and how their institutions prioritise it. With the first independently delivered workshops planned for September 2026, our ICAR training team looks forward to following the six newly certified trainers and seeing their work generate further impact across Romania. About the programme This TTT was part of the Component 3 of a larger Swiss-Romanian Cooperation Programme Strengthening the institutional capacity in the area of financial investigations and asset recovery FIARS . This component is implemented by the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice PICCJ as component operator, in partnership with the National Institute of Magistracy INM and the Basel Institute on Governance as the Swiss partner.
What can corruption sanctions really achieve?
For victims of corruption and related human rights abuses, justice is often out of reach. Courts may be compromised, prosecutors unwilling to act and political leaders implicated in the wrongdoing. In such cases, corruption sanctions cannot deliver justice on their own. They may, however, provide something else: accountability, recognition and consequences. These questions were at the heart of a Basel Institute on Governance webinar marking the launch of the working paper Corruption sanctions: What governments need to know. Commissioned by the Basel Institute's International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR and written by Dr Anton Moiseienko, the paper examines how governments can use corruption sanctions more strategically as part of wider anti-corruption efforts. Andrew Dornbierer, Head of Policy and Research at ICAR moderated the online launch event bringing together experts with experience across sanctions policy, litigation, advocacy and victims' rights. Dr Anton Moiseienko was joined by Sir William Browder KCMG, CEO of Hermitage Capital and Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign, Michael O'Kane , Senior Partner at Peters & Peters, and Lyra Nightingale , Senior Legal Advisor at REDRESS. Recognition matters Sanctions are often judged by whether they change behaviour, recover assets or deter future wrongdoing. Lyra Nightingale argued that this overlooks another form of impact. If a targeted sanction, such as a corruption sanction, can convey recognition, acknowledgement and some sense of justice for victims, it has already had an impact. Drawing on REDRESS's work with survivors of torture and other serious abuses linked to corruption, Nightingale described how sanctions can validate victims' experiences and demonstrate international solidarity when other routes to justice have failed. Examples from Iran and Angola illustrated the point. Victims and civil society groups viewed sanctions not simply as restrictions imposed on perpetrators, but as public acknowledgement that wrongdoing had occurred and that it mattered. Sanctions cannot provide a complete remedy, but they help signal that impunity is not absolute. Success means different things A recurring theme throughout the webinar was that sanctions are expected to achieve many things at once. Moiseienko argued that governments use corruption sanctions for a range of purposes: disrupting access to international financial systems, deterring future misconduct, condemning wrongdoing and supporting accountability efforts. Given this broad scope: It would be perverse to conclude that if corruption does not stop, sanctions have failed. That observation goes to the heart of the debate. Corruption sanctions are often directed at the most powerful and entrenched offenders. Eliminating corruption entirely is rarely a realistic objective. The more relevant question is whether sanctions increase pressure, restrict opportunities and support broader accountability efforts. The answer depends on what governments are trying to achieve. Do sanctions work? Here the panellists diverged. Drawing on years of experience representing sanctioned individuals, Michael O'Kane cautioned against assuming that sanctions automatically produce meaningful results. For some people, sanctions are profoundly impactful. For others, they are not particularly impactful at all. He argued that sanctions are most effective when they form part of a broader strategy that includes enforcement, asset recovery and clear incentives for behavioural change. Sir William Browder took a more forceful view. Reflecting on Russia's response to Magnitsky sanctions, he pointed to the extraordinary lengths taken to challenge and discredit the measures. So we know that we hit the Achilles' heel. For Browder, the reaction itself is evidence of effectiveness. Sanctions restrict access to assets, travel and international financial networks. They also create uncertainty among others who may fear becoming targets themselves. The disagreement was less about whether sanctions matter than about how much they can achieve on their own. Legitimacy is part of effectiveness The discussion repeatedly returned to legitimacy. Several speakers warned that sanctions derive much of their power from public confidence in their fairness and credibility. If they are perceived as arbitrary or politically motivated, their effectiveness may weaken over time. Moiseienko argued that governments should resist the temptation to use sanctions indiscriminately. The moment governments begin to look trigger-happy, indiscriminate or undisciplined in their use of sanctions, confidence in the entire system risks collapsing. Questions of transparency, evidence and due process therefore matter not only for legal reasons but also for practical ones. The legitimacy of sanctions is one of their greatest strengths. It can also be one of their greatest vulnerabilities. An evolving tool Corruption sanctions are now firmly established in the international anti-corruption landscape. Yet many of the questions surrounding them remain unresolved. - How should success be measured? - What role should sanctions play alongside criminal investigations and asset recovery efforts? - How can governments maintain public confidence while responding to evolving geopolitical pressures? As Andrew Dornbierer noted: Corruption sanctions are still a relatively new area of law and policy, and there will undoubtedly be significant developments in the years ahead. The webinar offered no single answer to these questions, but gave a sense of both the promise and the limitations of corruption sanctions. They are neither a cure-all nor a symbolic gesture. Used strategically, they can support accountability, recognise victims and increase pressure on those who have long operated with impunity. Learn more ::: links - Working Paper "Corruption sanctions: What governments need to know" - For policymakers grappling with these challenges, this Basel Institute’s Working Paper provides a valuable starting point. - Quick Guide to corruption sanctions - For an easy introduction to the concept. - Webinar recording - Watch the full webinar on YouTube. :::
Q&A: Why civil society and journalists need asset recovery skills – and how they can gain them
Investigative journalists and civil society organisations are often the first to uncover corruption, suspicious financial flows and hidden assets. But turning those discoveries into successful financial investigations and recovered assets requires specialised knowledge that many practitioners have never had the opportunity to acquire. To help bridge this gap, the Basel Institute's International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR has developed a new training course on Asset Recovery for Civil Society and Journalists. Combining practical exercises, open-source intelligence techniques and a realistic corruption case simulation, the course equips participants with a deeper understanding of how assets are traced, investigated and ultimately recovered. In this Q&A, ICAR trainers Tom Walugembe and Emmanuel Mringo explain why the training was developed, what makes its approach distinctive, who it is designed for and the impact they hope participants will have after completing it. What specific gap or need led to the development of this course for civil society and investigative journalists? In the past two decades we have seen major financial crime scandals, such as the Panama and Pandora Papers leaks, in which efforts by organisations like the International Consortium for Investigative Journalists ICIJ and the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project OCCRP have led to financial crime investigations and prosecutions. Yet in many parts of the world, journalists and other non-state actors like civil society organisations CSOs are under-equipped with the knowledge of asset recovery processes needed to carry out their core work effectively. For CSOs, that often includes advocacy for policy reform. For journalists, it means evidence-based investigative reporting, as well as the skills to trace illicit financial flows, understand money laundering typologies and gather actionable information whose exposure can trigger financial investigations and lead to the recovery of stolen assets. There is international recognition of their importance in the fight against corruption – e.g., Article 13 of the UN Convention Against Corruption, which requires state parties to take measures to promote the participation of CSOs and individuals in the fight against corruption. But when it comes to investigating and recovering proceeds of corruption, there is little or no targeted training to enable CSOs and journalists to play this role effectively. We developed the course to address these capacity gaps. How does this course fit within and complement ICAR’s wider training and learning offer? This course complements ICAR’s broader training portfolio by broadening its traditional audience. ICAR training programmes focus heavily on law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, financial intelligence units and judicial authorities. This new module extends ICAR’s reach to non-state actors while aligning with ICAR’s uniquely effective methodology and offerings. It also integrates with Basel LEARN, the Basel Institute’s online learning platform, which enables blended learning and pre-course preparation. The course emphasises core ICAR themes, including parallel financial investigations, international cooperation, and asset tracing, freezing and confiscation. And ICAR’s postgraduate programmes on asset recovery? Unlike the ICAR-led Certificate of Advanced Studies CAS programme on Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery, this is a short professional training course rather than a university-accredited academic programme. The CAS programmes, delivered in partnership with the University of Basel, run over six months and require around 300 hours of study. By contrast, this course provides a focused, accessible introduction to asset recovery concepts and practical skills. The aim is to enable individuals to strengthen their contribution to transparency, accountability and anti-corruption efforts without the substantial time commitment of a postgraduate programme. What makes the course’s approach – especially the use of a simulated case and OSINT –distinctive for this audience? Like other ICAR training modules, the course focuses on developing practical skills through the “learn by doing” methodology. Participants do not simply learn theoretical concepts in a classroom setting. Working in teams, they conduct a simulated corruption and money laundering investigation. They learn to follow financial trails wherever they lead, through layers of international banking transactions and the misuse of offshore shell companies. As this audience of CSOs and investigative journalists lacks investigative powers such as accessing bank accounts or searching premises , the course emphasises alternative methods for securing information that could trigger or support financial investigations. These include using access to public information laws and open-source intelligence OSINT . What kind of real-world impact do you realistically hope participants will have after completing the training? First, better investigations. Individuals who complete the course will gain stronger OSINT skills to effectively gather information on financial crime and illicit assets. They will have broader knowledge to detect modern bribery and money laundering schemes. They will understand anti-money laundering frameworks and the meticulous process of conducting financial investigations. They will have greater capacity to analyse financial records, such as bank statements, company documents and procurement records. Second, more objective reporting. The course will expose participants to the practical challenges of financial investigations and asset recovery, including capacity gaps, asset management and slow international cooperation. This will lead to, among other things, more objective press reporting on financial crimes and asset recovery cases. Third, a stronger accountability role. Upon completing the course, participants will also have the broader knowledge needed to report on and follow up on the reuse of recovered assets, ensuring they are used effectively. Fourth, a stronger network. The course will provide a platform to foster better cooperation among CSOs, investigative journalists and law enforcement agencies. It will also foster regional and international cooperation among CSOs and Investigative Journalists. Our dream? That CSOs and journalists go from being external observers and reporters to complementary actors who ensure that financial investigations are effective and transparent, and that stolen assets are quickly detected, traced, seized, well-managed, confiscated, repatriated and deployed to achieve sustainable development. Ambitious, but essential to making a dent in the corruption and financial crime that hinder development and prosperity worldwide. Interested in bringing this training to your organisation or network? The Asset Recovery for Civil Society and Journalists course can be delivered either onsite or online for booked groups of approximately 25–30 participants. It is suitable for national, regional or international audiences and can be tailored to specific contexts and learning needs. For individuals, the course is also offered online as an open enrolment programme, allowing participants from anywhere in the world to join. To learn more or discuss delivery options, contact training@baselgovernance.org.
The powerful role of investigative journalists in tackling crypto-related crime (and what would boost it)
How can investigative journalists help expose crypto-related crime – and educate both the public and policymakers in an increasingly complex financial landscape? That was the knot unravelled in a recent webinar jointly organised by the Basel Institute on Governance and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe OSCE , and moderated by Dr Jolly Mtaba of Malawi University of Business and Applied Sciences. Speakers spanning investigative journalism, law enforcement and public-private cooperation discussed the opportunities and challenges of investigating illicit activity involving virtual assets. They also probed the skills and collaborations needed to turn media investigations into on-the-ground impact on public awareness, policy advancement and law enforcement action. Below are some of the key takeaways from the discussion. Why does investigative journalism matter in the fight against crypto-related crime? According to investigative journalist Geoff White , journalists play two critical roles. One is investigative: uncovering wrongdoing, exposing weaknesses in systems and shining a light on fraud, corruption and money laundering. The other is educational. Many people have heard of cryptocurrency, but far fewer understand how it works, how it can be misused or why it can create opportunities for criminals. Journalists therefore have an important role in helping the public, policymakers and law enforcement agencies understand increasingly complex financial crime risks. As White noted, and has sought to do in his latest book Rinsed and podcast series The Lazarus Heist , there's the explanation piece, and then there's also the investigation and the forcing daylight into this industry. What makes crypto investigations different? The panellists agreed that crypto-related investigative reporting presents unique challenges. Spencer Woodman of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists ICIJ gave an example from the ICIJ’s Coin Laundry investigation. He explained that while many aspects of crypto investigations resemble traditional money laundering investigations, aspects such as self-custody wallets and crypto-to-cash services introduce a new level of complexity. Unlike traditional financial accounts, self-custody wallets can be created quickly, anonymously and without the involvement of a financial institution, he explained: One thing that amazed me in this investigation was figuring out how easy it is to make my own self-custody wallet. You can generate these things at the click of a button, and that’s one reason scammers have such an easy time laundering money in crypto. This makes tracing funds significantly more difficult, particularly when cryptocurrency is converted into cash through informal crypto-to-cash desks or courier services operating outside traditional regulatory frameworks. Building on White’s comments about the explanatory function of journalism, an additional challenge is explaining complex blockchain technology to the audience, said Woodman: These scoops and new pieces of information are often about complex financial dealings, and that's already difficult to explain to readers in a succinct way. And then you have this additional challenge of having to explain what cryptocurrency is at a more basic level to a general readership. So the stories are serving a dual purpose – explaining the complex ins and outs of crypto, and then trying to explain the often complicated findings of our investigation. Can investigative journalism lead to real-world action? The answer is a clear yes. Alexandra Gillies of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project OCCRP highlighted several investigations that led to concrete outcomes. After one investigation into the Lithuanian crypto company Bankera, the Lithuanian authorities launched a criminal investigation and conducted more than 30 raids of companies connected to the case. Two banks in Lithuania and Vanuatu faced consequences too. Another OCCRP investigation uncovered links between two UK-registered crypto exchanges and suspected Iranian money laundering networks. Following publication, the companies were removed from the UK corporate register. She explained: At OCCRP we take a proactive approach. First, through outreach to people who can use the information, such as the briefings we gave to law enforcement agencies and policymakers about the findings of our big Scam Empire project. Second by collaborating with civil society organisations such as Transparency International – where the journalists do their reporting, and then the civil society groups push for policy change, or for accountability and legal consequences for those involved in the wrongdoing. This has worked really well on a number of corruption issues. Moderator Dr Jolly Ntaba added an example from Malawi, where a collaborative corruption investigation by journalists sparked a national debate and led to a presidential directive aimed at addressing some of the issues uncovered. How can journalists and law enforcement work together without compromising independence? This was one of the webinar's central themes. Eric van der Schild , Head of Europol's Financial Intelligence Public Private Partnership EFIPPP , emphasised that trust is essential. Journalists and law enforcement agencies have different mandates and operate under different constraints, but both share an interest in exposing criminal activity and improving public safety. He and other panellists stressed that cooperation does not mean sharing unpublished information or compromising journalistic independence. Gillies clarified that OCCRP's engagement with law enforcement takes place after publication and is based on publicly available reporting: The way we share information is by publishing stories. Instead, panellists highlighted the value of dialogue, mutual learning and ensuring that investigative findings reach the institutions best placed to act on them. The old adage remains true, said van der Schild: Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback. What skills do journalists need to investigate crypto-related crime? Several panellists highlighted the growing need for specialist expertise. Tom Walugembe of the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery pointed to a range of skills that can strengthen investigative reporting, including financial analysis, open source intelligence techniques and a better understanding of asset recovery mechanisms. He also emphasised the importance of understanding how law enforcement agencies conduct investigations and cooperate across borders. The need for such skills beyond law enforcement is the main driver of the Basel Institute’s development of a new course on financial investigations and asset recovery directed specifically at civil society organisations and investigative journalists. Woodman argued that journalists do not need to become blockchain specialists overnight. However, they do need a solid understanding of the basics: The best way to operate, in my opinion, as a reporter focusing on crypto, is to build some capacity and understanding of how to use public blockchain explorers. That foundation allows journalists to engage more effectively with technical experts and critically assess the information they receive: There are things in the metadata of those transactions that can really trip you up… relationships with experts are crucial, but it’s never very helpful to go to an expert and say: tell me everything about what I’m looking at here. You need to look at the thing yourself and then say: am I looking at this correctly? Are there enough resources and expertise available? Not yet. Both OCCRP and ICIJ described ongoing efforts to build internal expertise on cryptocurrency and blockchain analysis. One challenge is that many media organisations rely on commercial blockchain analytics providers, which can be expensive and may have potential conflicts of interest due to their relationships with industry clients. As a result, several speakers stressed the importance of building in-house expertise. Gillies noted that investigative journalism increasingly requires multidisciplinary teams capable of combining traditional reporting skills with technical and financial expertise. At the OCCRP, they are keen to strengthen collaboration with academic researchers and data scientists, she said. What challenges do journalists face? Apart from the omnipresent challenges of resources and expertise, the risks associated with investigating crypto-related crime are often the same risks faced by journalists investigating corruption, organised crime and money laundering more broadly. These include legal threats, cyberattacks, political pressure and, in some countries, threats to personal safety. In response to a question from the audience, panellists emphasised the impact of declining press freedom. Restrictions on independent journalism can lead to self-censorship, force journalists into exile and reduce the amount of actionable information that reaches the public domain. Gillies said: There’s a lot of stress and distraction that comes from managing repression. The panellists agreed that protecting press freedom is essential if investigative journalism is to continue playing an effective accountability role. It’s in governments’ interests to “take that issue seriously and put it at the top of the agenda”, including both legal protections and adequate resourcing. What was the overall message? The webinar highlighted that cracking down on crypto-related crime is a complex challenge that is evolving at a dizzying rate and that requires all hands on deck. Investigative journalists, law enforcement agencies, civil society organisations, researchers and policymakers each bring different strengths to that effort. And though the technology may be evolving rapidly, the aim remains the same: follow the money, expose wrongdoing, ensure that those responsible are held accountable and strengthen policies to protect people, businesses and states. As the discussion demonstrated, investigative journalism continues to be one of the most powerful tools available for achieving that goal. Learn more ::: links - View the webinar recording on YouTube - Read about the role of international and non-profit organisations in tackling crypto-related crime, drawing on another Basel Institute–OSCE webinar and insights from UNODC, the FIU :::
Congratulations to the winners of the International Collective Action Awards 2026
The winners of the International Collective Action Awards 2026 were announced on 9 June during the International Collective Action Conference in Basel, Switzerland. Presented by the Basel Institute on Governance, the Awards recognise outstanding initiatives that demonstrate the power of Collective Action to address corruption, strengthen business integrity and contribute to fairer and more transparent markets. Alliance for Integrity: Outstanding Achievements award The Gretta Fenner Outstanding Achievement in Collective Action Award 2026 was awarded to Alliance for Integrity. The initiative was recognised for building one of the world’s largest business integrity Collective Action networks, bringing together companies, business associations, governments and civil society organisations across 16 countries. Through practical training, dialogue and collaboration, Alliance for Integrity has helped thousands of businesses – particularly small and medium-sized enterprises – strengthen their integrity and compliance practices. The initiative demonstrates how Collective Action can be scaled across different regions and contexts to create lasting impact. CoST Malawi’s Red Flags Algorithm: Inspirational Newcomer award The Collective Action Inspirational Newcomer Award 2026 was awarded to CoST Malawi Infrastructure Transparency Initiative: Red Flags Algorithm. The initiative was recognised for its innovative approach to strengthening transparency and accountability in public infrastructure projects. At the centre of the initiative is the Red Flags Algorithm, integrated into Malawi’s Information Platform for Public Infrastructure, which helps identify potential corruption risks and anomalies in project data. By combining technology, transparency and multi-stakeholder collaboration, the initiative is helping improve oversight of public infrastructure investments and strengthen public trust. Recognising excellence in Collective Action The International Collective Action Awards celebrate initiatives that bring together businesses, governments, civil society organisations and other stakeholders to address shared integrity challenges that no single actor can solve alone. The Basel Institute congratulates the winners and all finalists for their commitment to advancing integrity and accountability through Collective Action. Their achievements demonstrate the continued importance of collaboration in addressing corruption risks and promoting responsible business conduct around the world. The Conference and Awards are supported by the Siemens Integrity Initiative.
How will the EU Anti-Corruption Directive affect enforcement against corruption?
What does the EU's new Anti-Corruption Directive actually change, and where does it fall short? This article by Rita Simões of the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery takes a closer look at the final text. She looks at what was adopted, what was left out during negotiations, and what the final text is likely to mean for enforcement across the EU. For a broader reflection on what the directive reveals about changing corruption risks and the future direction of EU anti-corruption policy, see a companion analysis by Dr Jacopo Costa. The European Union EU has adopted and published its Anti-Corruption Directive, concluding a process that began with the Commission’s proposal in May 2023. Its adoption comes amid a broader recalibration of global anti-corruption enforcement, marked by decreased U.S. leadership through the scaling back of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement and increased expectations for the EU to assume a more central role in global anti-corruption efforts. Following a lengthy negotiation period, the final directive is a compromise between the widely differing levels of ambition reflected in the proposals put forth by the European Parliament and European Commission. It establishes a common baseline of corruption offences, corporate liability rules and jurisdiction, but leaves member states significant discretion to limit the scope of new measures. The final version also omits key provisions relating to political financing, non-trial resolutions and victims’ rights. Therefore, the directive's central achievement is the harmonisation of anti-corruption offences and sanctions. Its central limitation is that it leaves key aspects of enforcement practice largely in the hands of member states. Important changes in criminal law, liability and jurisdiction The directive establishes a detailed enforcement and prevention framework. It requires member states to, among others: - create independent anti-corruption bodies; - adopt national strategies; - conduct sector-specific risk assessments; - provide training for officials; and - use Europol’s SIENA system for information exchange. These measures are complemented by harmonised statistical reporting obligations on investigations, prosecutions and sanctions. On substantive criminal law, the directive introduces a harmonised baseline of corruption offences across member states including domestic and foreign bribery, trading in influence, misappropriation, abuse of functions and obstruction of justice. The directive also requires member states to establish a broad criminal liability regime for legal persons . Under this framework, companies can be held accountable for corruption offences, including those resulting from lapses in senior management supervision. Notably, the directive reinforces this regime through obligating the use of dissuasive measures, such as fines based on global turnover and exclusion from public procurement. The directive also strengthens jurisdictional rules. Member states must assert jurisdiction over offences committed on their territory or by their nationals. Furthermore, a member state can prosecute offences committed abroad without needing the state where the crime occurred to report it first. . How these could help enhance anti-corruption enforcement These measures aim to strengthen the EU’s enforcement capacity by expanding the legal tools available to investigate and prosecute corruption, particularly in cross-border cases. Measures on corporate liability, for instance, will strengthen the ability of member states to address complex bribery schemes involving multinational structures. Similarly, the enhanced jurisdictional rules will enable member states to pursue corruption cases that occurred outside their territory, even where the state in which the corruption took place is unwilling or unable to act. In addition, the institutional and procedural framework – particularly coordination, risk assessments and dedicated enforcement bodies – should strengthen the EU’s ability to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute corruption. However, enforcement effectiveness will still depend heavily on national implementation capacity and political will. Three missed opportunities: political financing, non-trial resolutions and victim participation Previously identified as areas of significant potential, several key measures proposed by the European Parliament that could have further enhanced enforcement were excluded or significantly watered down in the final directive. Political financing The European Parliament had proposed stronger measures to tackle illicit political financing, including enhanced transparency requirements and potential criminalisation of certain violations. However, member states are only encouraged – not required – to address risks linked to political funding, with no binding obligation to implement transparency measures or criminalise political financing. This leaves the EU without a harmonised framework in this area. This is a critical gap given growing concerns about how illicit funding can distort electoral processes and enable undue influence over public decision-making, both globally and at the European level653631 EN.pdf . Non-trial resolutions Proposed mandatory frameworks for non-trial resolutions in cases involving legal persons, reflecting established practice in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, were not retained as binding obligations in the final directive. As a result, this instrument does not establish a level playing field across the EU. This is likely to lead to divergent enforcement approaches, with some jurisdictions relying on negotiated resolutions while others depending on full criminal proceedings. Such fragmentation may weaken the effective imposition of financial sanctions on companies, as well as the recovery of proceeds and their use for compensating victims of corruption or enhance anti-corruption efforts. Victim and public participation in corruption cases The final version of the directive requires member states to grant procedural rights to victims and members of the public affected by corruption offences. But it largely relies on existing EU frameworks and national law, providing participation rights only where they already exist domestically. By contrast, the European Parliament’s proposal was more ambitious: it sought to define these categories explicitly, regulate their procedural rights and grant victims a clear right to compensation. As a result, recognition of victims in corruption cases remains uneven across member states. This approach also may limit victim and civil society participation, despite growing international support for more participatory approaches. Anti-corruption ambition is now up to member states The directive adopts an anti-corruption approach that strengthens enforcement powers while maintaining deference to national legal systems. Its effectiveness will depend heavily on implementation, particularly where it sets only minimum standards or leaves room for national discretion. In practice, this is likely to produce uneven legal frameworks across the EU, shaped more by domestic political will than by EU-led harmonisation. Member states implementing the directive will face a choice: - Should they adhere to the minimum requirements only? - Or take the opportunity to pursue more ambitious anti-corruption reforms, including some of the broader measures originally proposed by the European Parliament? Choosing a more ambitious approach presents an opportunity to lead by example and influence future EU reform.
Corruption in the age of networks, data and influence – does the EU's new Anti-Corruption Directive rise to the challenge?
This article by Dr Jacopo Costa is one of two Basel Institute commentaries on the EU's new Anti-Corruption Directive. While the companion piece by Rita Simões examines the directive's legal and institutional implications, this article takes a political economy perspective. It considers what the directive reveals about changing understandings of corruption, how corruption risks are evolving in an increasingly interconnected and technology-driven environment, and where future EU anti-corruption efforts may need to focus. The key message is that the directive represents an important advance in legal harmonisation, but that effective anti-corruption policy will also require stronger strategic thinking, greater use of data and technology, and closer attention to emerging corruption risks linked to procurement, border security and financial infrastructure. April 2026, the European Union formally adopted Directive 2026/1021 on combatting corruption. Following years of negotiations, political disagreements and institutional bargaining, the EU now has a comprehensive anti-corruption framework establishing common definitions, offences, sanctions and preventive measures across its member states. This is a landmark achievement. But it would be a mistake to view the directive as the culmination of the European anti-corruption journey. In fact, its adoption marks the beginning of a much larger challenge: turning a legal framework into an effective EU Anti-Corruption Strategy that can address the evolving forms of corruption emerging in an increasingly complex geopolitical and technological landscape. Why the directive matters For years, the EU lacked a coherent anti-corruption framework. Although member states had their own legislation, there were significant differences in how corruption offences were defined, investigated and punished. These discrepancies created loopholes that could be exploited by corrupt individuals and hindered cross-border cooperation between national authorities. The new directive aims to address these issues by introducing common minimum standards across the EU. In particular, it: - harmonises the definitions of bribery in the public and private sectors, trading in influence, misappropriation, obstruction of justice, illicit enrichment and the concealment of criminal proceeds; - introduces common standards for criminal sanctions, corporate liability, statutes of limitation, whistleblower protection, anti-corruption strategies and specialised anti-corruption bodies; and - broadens the definition of public officials to encompass not only national officeholders, but also senior EU officials and individuals performing public duties on behalf of public institutions. This reflects the reality of contemporary governance, where public services are increasingly delivered through hybrid public–private arrangements. It is the most ambitious attempt yet to establish a shared European anti-corruption framework. A more modern understanding of corruption One of the directive's most significant strengths is its recognition that corruption is not confined to the traditional notion of an envelope stuffed with cash being exchanged. We welcome this change in perspective greatly, because our research demonstrates clearly that contemporary corruption is increasingly networked, sophisticated and relational. It often relies on intermediaries, influence brokers, hidden financial channels, luxury gifts, preferential treatment, future career opportunities and informal exchanges of favours. Including offences such as trading in influence, illicit enrichment, concealing criminal proceeds and aiding or abetting corruption schemes shows an understanding of how corruption operates in modern societies. This evolution is important because anti-corruption frameworks often struggle to keep up with the evolving nature of corruption. The directive is a valuable attempt to address this issue and close the resulting gap. The price of political compromise Legislation is never produced in isolation from politics. Significant disagreements emerged among EU institutions and member states during the adoption process. Several governments expressed concerns about subsidiarity and the potential consequences of criminalising particular behaviours. So, the final directive is less ambitious than the original proposal. One example concerns the offence previously known as “abuse of office”. Following intense political resistance, particularly from countries such as Germany and Italy, the final text replaced it with the more cautious formulation of “unlawful exercise of public functions”. The compromise facilitated agreement, but introduced ambiguity that could hinder enforcement. Similarly, criminal sanctions and limitation periods were reduced during negotiations. Maximum prison sentences were reduced, and statutes of limitation were scaled back considerably compared to earlier drafts. These compromises highlight a recurring dilemma in policymaking not only in Europe but everywhere: achieving consensus often necessitates compromising on ambition. The result is a directive that establishes a common baseline, yet leaves considerable room for interpretation among member states. The missing security lens Perhaps the most significant limitation of the directive is its relatively little guidance on what anti-corruption efforts should look like in today's rapidly changing security environment. This is because corruption is increasingly also a geopolitical and security issue. Foreign influence operations, sanctions evasion schemes, strategic corruption, illicit financial networks, organised crime infiltration and the manipulation of critical supply chains all represent corruption-related risks affecting European security and resilience. Yet these challenges remain largely outside the directive's core focus. There is a risk that anti-corruption efforts will continue to focus on traditional forms of misconduct while underestimating emerging threats linked to geopolitical competition and hybrid forms of influence. The technology gap Considering the hype around artificial intelligence in society generally, the most striking omission in the directive is the limited attention devoted to technological innovation. Over the past decade, governments, international organisations and researchers have been exploring how artificial intelligence, big data analytics, risk indicators, predictive modelling and open-source intelligence can bolster anti-corruption initiatives. Technology is now essential for identifying suspicious procurement patterns, pinpointing conflicts of interest, tracing illicit financial flows and exposing corruption networks. Yet the directive contains almost no strategic vision regarding the role of technology in anti-corruption governance, which is surprising. Research conducted under the EU-funded FALCON project – of which the Basel Institute is a consortium member – demonstrates that effective anti-corruption systems are increasingly dependent on digital infrastructures capable of collecting, integrating, analysing and cross-referencing large volumes of information. Without these capabilities, many corruption risks remain invisible until significant damage has already occurred. It’s important to stress that adopting new technologies – purchasing software, etc. – is the easy part. EU states also need to create the institutional and data infrastructures that allow these technologies to function effectively. Digitisation, interoperability, standardised datasets, machine-readable information and cross-border information sharing are all prerequisites for the next generation of anti-corruption systems. Three areas that deserve greater attention From our research in the following areas, we can say for sure that they deserve particular attention in the EU’s Anti-Corruption Strategy and future initiatives: 1\. Public procurement Public procurement remains one of the sectors most vulnerable to corruption. This issue is exacerbated by Europe's increased investment in defence, critical infrastructure, energy security, technological innovation and strategic industrial policies. Central priorities should include strengthening transparency, reducing direct awards, improving oversight of sub-threshold contracts, and introducing AI-based risk assessment tools. 2\. Border governance Managing borders and customs procedures is another critical challenge, as research at the Port of Rotterdam and the Kapitan Andreevo crossing demonstrates. Corruption at the border facilitates a wide range of criminal activities, including smuggling, trafficking, evasion of sanctions, tax fraud and the movement of illicit goods. Greater automation, data integration and harmonisation of border management systems across member states could significantly reduce opportunities for corruption and strengthen the EU's capacity to detect emerging threats. 3\. Financial infrastructures Modern corruption relies heavily on financial infrastructure. Complex financial networks, shell companies, professional intermediaries, offshore structures and, increasingly, cryptoassets can facilitate the movement and concealment of illicit funds. The future of anti-corruption policy hinges on strengthening the links between anti-corruption and anti-money laundering frameworks, and on developing new approaches that can address digital financial ecosystems. Will the EU’s Anti-Corruption Strategy help put the directive into action? The adoption of Directive 2026/1021 sends an important message that corruption remains a priority issue for the European Union. The directive establishes a much-needed common foundation and introduces valuable innovations to improve both prevention and enforcement. It provides a stronger legal framework than the fragmented system that existed previously. But legal harmonisation alone will not be enough. The directive's effectiveness will ultimately depend on how member states implement its provisions, and on whether the European Union can develop a broader strategic vision capable of addressing emerging corruption risks. This is where the forthcoming EU Anti-Corruption Strategy could play a decisive role. To be effective and not just a paper exercise, it must be adaptive, technology-driven and security-conscious. This strategy must respond to current corruption and anticipate its potential evolution. And it needs to be based on a participative process that considers the valuable research and perspectives of civil society organisations, academics and others outside of government. If the directive provides the legal architecture, the strategy can provide the direction. Together, they could form the basis of a more adaptive and forward-looking European anti-corruption framework – one that is able to keep pace with a rapidly changing world.
Holding the corrupt to account: the promise and potential of corruption sanctions
When states fail to hold corrupt actors to account, ordinary citizens pay the price. Corruption sanctions were born from the idea that no one should be above the law, no matter where they are in the world. In a new Working Paper, Dr Anton Moiseienko explores how these tools have evolved and offers recommendations for their more effective and legitimate use. Here we share the foreword to his paper by the Basel Institute's Andrew Dornbierer, Head of Policy and Research, International Centre for Asset Recovery. Foreword Every state has an obligation to investigate and prosecute corruption within their jurisdiction. Unfortunately, many states around the world are not willing to fulfil this responsibility. As a result, the very individuals within these states tasked with serving the public interest are instead given free rein to commit acts that not only serve themselves but also corrode the fabric of the state. And ordinary citizens have no alternative but to endure the ensuing economic and social damage. The development of sanctions tools targeting corruption stemmed from the idea that justice should be universal; that no one in any society around the world should be above the law. They are powerful tools, built on powerful principles. States introducing them understand that unchecked corruption will always suffocate a state’s ability to provide security, fairness and prosperity to its citizens. Comparatively though, corruption sanctions are still an underdeveloped concept and are far from perfect. Only a handful of states have introduced them, and those that have are not often using them to their full potential. They also spark valid concerns surrounding due process. These criticisms shouldn’t be ignored: they offer an insight on how these tools could be further developed and enhanced to ensure that they are more credibly and consistently applied. In his paper, Anton Moiseienko provides an excellent and well-researched overview of how corruption sanctions could be designed and employed to better achieve their potential. He explains how these tools have evolved over the last two decades and how they could be further refined to be more effective and achieve a wider range of impact. Critically, his paper is an indispensable resource for those looking to understand exactly how such sanctions can help states deter, disrupt and debilitate the notoriously corrupt that are unreachable through standard criminal justice tools. Learn more Read Dr Anton Moiseienko’s Working Paper “Corruption sanctions: What governments need to know” for a deeper analysis of the topic and key policy recommendations. Get a brief introduction to corruption sanctions from our related Quick Guide. Register for our public webinar "Corruption sanctions – reaching those beyond the law" on 18 June 2026, marking the launch of Dr Moiseienko's Working Paper.
Basel Institute joins regional effort to strengthen security, justice and development in Latin America
Reducing the economic power of organised crime is essential to improving security, strengthening justice systems and supporting sustainable development across Latin America and the Caribbean. And doing that requires strong and dependable partnerships. Building on more than a decade of support to authorities across the region, the Basel Institute on Governance has formally joined the Alliance for Security, Justice and Development, a regional initiative led by the Inter-American Development Bank IDB . The Alliance seeks to strengthen coordinated responses to organised crime in Latin America and the Caribbean through dialogue, cooperation, knowledge exchange and resource mobilisation. Supporting the fight against illicit financial flows For the Basel Institute and its International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR , participation in the Alliance represents a further opportunity to contribute its expertise in financial investigations, asset recovery, international cooperation and public financial management while working alongside governments, international organisations and other partners committed to strengthening security, justice and development across the region. Executive Director Elizabeth Andersen signed the declaration formalising the Basel Institute’s participation in the Alliance in Washington, D.C. The signing followed close engagement between senior IDB and Alliance representatives and Oscar Solórzano, Head of ICAR Latin America. Strengthening regional cooperation The Alliance for Security, Justice and Development is a regional platform for dialogue, cooperation, knowledge exchange and resource mobilisation aimed at preventing and responding to organised crime in Latin America and the Caribbean. Coordinated by the IDB through its Citizen Security Division, the Alliance currently brings together 23 member states and multiple strategic partners from the international, development and security sectors. Its work is structured around three strategic pillars: protecting vulnerable communities from organised crime and violence; strengthening institutional resilience within security and justice systems; and reducing illicit financial flows and illicit markets to weaken the operational capacity and influence of criminal organisations. Bringing expertise in asset recovery and financial investigations The Basel Institute will contribute particularly to the third pillar, leaning on the expertise and two decades of experience of its specialised International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR . Elizabeth Andersen stated that the Basel Institute is honoured to participate in such a high-level initiative focused on issues of critical importance for Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as for the broader international community. Oscar Solórzano highlighted that the Alliance represents an important opportunity to support countries in strengthening asset recovery systems, international cooperation and institutional capacities against increasingly sophisticated forms of organised crime and illicit economies. Building on a decade of support in Latin America Our participation builds on more than a decade of operational and technical support to authorities across Latin America in areas including financial investigations, asset recovery, international cooperation and – through a dedicated programme – public financial management. Activities under the Alliance framework are expected to begin in the region in the coming months, with our teams supporting key initiatives and technical workstreams developed through the Alliance in the years ahead. Our participation reflects our longstanding commitment to helping countries tackle corruption, illicit financial flows and organised crime, and our belief that sustainable impact is achieved through strong partnerships that bring together public authorities, international organisations and practitioners around shared goals.